News aggregators deleted the headline in PoliSat.Com's March 29, 2008 installment focusing on a
March 29, 2008 news article relevant to issues explored in the video titled "Anatomy of a Face
in Fitna," posted by PoliSat.Com on March 28, 2008, about inclusion of a photographic likeness
of Dutch-Moroccan rapper Salah Edin in the Geert Wilders film, "Fitna." The effect
is to exclude the March 29 installment from most, but not all, topical searches for news and
commentary about Fitna. Therefore, this installment serves as a March 30, 2008 update to
include the March 29, 2008 installment. The March
29, 2008 news article pertinent to issues explored in the video "Anatomy of a Face
in Fitna" posted by PoliSat.Com on March
28, 2008 about Geert Wilders' film "Fitna" brings to light information not
widely known in the West generally (and not known by PoliSat.Com in making that video on March 27
and 28, 2008). PoliSat.Com's "Anatomy of a Face in Fitna" focuses on what then seemed
to PoliSat.Com (and others) to have been Wilders' mistaken adaptation of an image of the
Dutch-Moroccan rapper, Salah Edin, rather than an image of Mohammmed Bouyeri, in frames of
"Fitna" depicting the murderer of Theo Van Gogh. For context about such
information, read the excerpts quoted below from the March 29, 2008, news article (bold/italics
added by PoliSat.Com):

Amsterdam--
Dutch-Moroccan rapper Salah Edin has demanded that opposition legislator Geert Wilders remove his
photo from Wilders' controversial anti-Islam film posted on the internet. If Wilders fails to remove
Edin's picture, the rapper will take legal steps, he told the Dutch media on Saturday. Edin
made his name among young Dutch Moroccans with his 2007 rap album, the cover of which carries a
photo of Edin make to look like Mohammmed Bouyeri, the convicted assassin of late Dutch film maker
Theo van Gogh. Edin has continued to appear as the Muslim assassin's lookalike ever since.
Fitna, Wilders' controversial 16-minute film about the alleged Islamization of the Netherlands, uses
Edin's lookalike photo from the cover of his rap album and not an original Bouyeri photo when
referring to Van Gogh's assassin. Initially, Edin said he was "extremely offended" by the
fact that his photo appeared in Fitna, and that it would harm his reputation to be confused with a
convicted terrorist. But meanwhile Edin has adjusted his complaints and says he is primarily
unhappy with the fact his picture was used without paying him copyright. Wilders also faces
legal action from Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard over the use of his famous caricature of the
Prophet Mohammed in Fitna. The Dutch journalists' union NVJ has demanded that Wilders remove
Westergaard's famous cartoon from the film. Rapper Edin's album, entitled The Biggest Dutch
Nightmare, contains strong language and is extremely negative if not discriminatory about Dutch
society and women. In May 2007, Edin was quoted in Dutch daily newspaper DAG about the
Holocaust as saying: "I am not sure if there were really 6 million (Jews killed by the Nazis in
the Holocaust). I question that." (Bold-Italics added.) [Standard
URL link to this article] [Print-Article
URL link].

To best understand the relevance of that information, one must indulge a series of suppositions:
Suppose in America in the wake of the conviction of James Earl Ray for the assassination of Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr. there were to have been a KKK-sympathizing musician who made himself
"prominent" with a musical album bearing a cover showing his face in a manner and pose
intended to resemble the murderer James Earl Ray as well as to tacitly convey support to the kind of
bigotry and hatred the murder of King exemplified. Suppose further that the musical lyrics in
the album expressed tacit, if not overt, support for the bigoted, hateful views harbored by people
such as James Earl Ray. Suppose even further that the KKK-sympathizing musician continued to
commercially and politically exploit his appearance as a "look-a-like' for James Earl Ray.
Suppose further that a movie director/producer were to have thereafter made a film not only about
the kind of hatred and barbarism exemplified by the KKK and Ray but also about (a) the
cowardly passivity of normal people and the mediaand cultural
"icons" towards such fanaticism and (b) the willingness of some "artists" to
glorify such fanatics and/or excuse their barbarities as though they were victims of oppression or
discrimination. Who would find it surprising that such director might use the face of
the self-styled "look-a-like" for James Earl Ray instead of the face of Ray in depicting
the "murderer" of King? Wouldn't most of Hollywood today consider that to be a
proper example of "artistic license" given the self-selecting nature of the musician's
"look-a-like" career strategy? Wouldn't Hollywood today be eager to nominate such
director for an Academy Award? (Indeed, wouldn't that represent one of the now-rare instances
of good sense in Hollywood today?)

Suppose such musician were to then file suit against such director for "copyright"
violation and/or defamation. How many courts would find such claims meritorious? To
paraphrase Mr. Rogers, "Can you say 'None'"? Indeed, non-profit foundations on the
right and left providing free legal representation on first-amendment issues would (rightly) spring
to the director's defense. America's entertainment industry would fete the director.

Oprah would hug him. The ladies on The View would adore him. The so-called
"mainstream" media would cover the controversy in a manner overtly sympathetic to him.
United Nations leaders would laud him. The Daily Kos would worship him as would MoveOn.
Even Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Jane Fonda and Sharon Stone would express their adulation for the
director's "courage." Rush Limbaugh would laud him as would Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity,
Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin and the crew at HotAir. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John
McCain and even Ralph Nader would make a joint campaign commercial expressing their non-partisan
agreement on lauding the director. This would present a rare moment of political harmony among
the American Left, Center and Right. Light would come down from Heaven and even shine on
Secular Fundamentalists. Who knows, Hugo Chavez and Raul and Fidel Castro would laud him.
Maybe even Ed Asner and Mike Farrell. Surely Harry Belafonte and Danny Glover and most
definitely the Reverend Mr. Wright (not to be confused with the Reverend Mr. Black popularized by
the Kingston Trio in the 1960's).

Now, back to Wilders and Edin. Given the apparently undisputed facts of Salah Edin having
promoted his "musical" career as a "look-a-like' for the murderer of Van Gogh and as
an apologist for, if not a glorifier of, the kind of Islamic fanatics exemplified by, and
sympathetically supporting, terrorists such as Van Gogh's murder, any sensible court of law
would dismiss any "copyright" claim or any other claim by Edin against Wilders as patently
frivolous. Thus, although I initially assumed Wilders' apparent use of a modified image of
Edin in the frames depicting Van Gogh's murder was an example of either incompetence or stupidity,
now that I know what Paul Harvey would call "the rest of the story," I think Wilders' use
of Edin's image in this fashion was brilliant. Will anyone on the Hollywood Left
or even among the rest of the liberal poseurs in America agree with that? Don't hold your
breath. Only "NeoCons" will will have the "audacity" to express the
"hope" that Wilders' film has the effect of waking up at least some who are asleep in the
West.

Therefore, it's sensible to also include in this installment an embedded version of Fitna (see video
box to the left) now playing on Google video. Thus far, Google has shown courage for quite a
few more hours than did LiveLeak. However, given Google's long-lasting love-affair with
political correctness as well as its willingness to kowtow to the Peoples' Republic of China, one's
optimism on this issue must be guarded. If Google were to continue hosting the video
indefinitely, I would be first in line to extend "kudos" to Google (even though Google's
own YouTube has capitulated to what appear to me to have been demands by nutroots on the left to ban
several of PoliSat.Com's anti-Left videos on political grounds-- more on this to be
provided in an update.)

As Western media outlets decide how they will treat Geert Wilders' film, "Fitna" (released
yesterday, March 27, 2008), the
question arises: Will classical Western liberalism exhibit resistance or submission?
Courage or capitulation? The same question must be asked about how Islamic media outlets that claim
to disavow such fanaticism will treat it. There are not grounds for serious optimism regarding
the latter, and it remains to be seen how much courage will be exhibited by the former.
Update: Now we know-- LiveLeak removed Fitna from it's servers in response to receipt of
serious threats to its staff members. Go
here for LiveLeak's explanation. Regarding he "Anatomy of a Face in
Fitna" (see image below-left), it's not the Fitna video, but it's relevant to it-- to learn
why, scroll further down for more information about it and for viewing it or
click here.

But trusty Rusty
has uploaded it to Google Video for direct viewing here
(or for embedded viewing using the embedded Google version at Jawa
Report or below on this page). How long before Google caves to threats?
(Gentlemen, start your stopwatches.) Furthermore, the fact that the version uploaded to Google
Video still displays the LiveLeak logo provides an easy, lame excuse for Google Video to
cave. How long will Google stand up to the terrorists? As long as they've stood up
to Chinese censors? How long before Google changes its mission statement from "Google's
mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful"
to "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible
and useful except, of course, for information offensive to fanatical adherents to medieval,
tyrannical and barbaric interpretations of Islam or to any official of the Peoples' Republic of
China or anyone else more serious and threatening about their ideology than we at Google are loyal
to our originally stated 'mission.'"

This is a time when every media outlet professing to favor liberty over tyranny should encourage
facilitation of access to the film to make it ubiquitous in order to facilitate public understanding
of not only the film but the reasons for which Wilders made it. Thus far, too few have been
willing to do so and too many are cowed by fear of the fanatics. What is the current
"slogan" of America's self-described "liberals" demanding
"non-partisanship" in politics? "Divided we fall" is it not? Will
they show their willingness to "unite" on the side of freedom against terroristic
tyranny? Don't hold your breath. Too many in the West are still
living in a dream world leaving them as naively oblivious to the threat of the fanatical variety of
Islamic ideology as was Neville Chamberlain to the fanatical, ruthless and barbaric nature of
Nazism.

Too many in the so-called "mainstream" media who profess to worship the
rights of free speech and free press as vital to the survival of liberty paradoxically and
incorrectly think adherence to such principles obliges them to be "neutral" about the
conflict between the forces of liberty and tyranny. They don't seem to understand that on the
issue of freedom, they can't be "neutral" and must, instead, "take sides."
That's what classical Western liberalism did. It "took sides" with liberty against
tyranny. Today, too many people claiming to be "liberal" are merely liberal poseurs
vacuously frolicking in the insulated bubble most of the rest of us recognize as the "Hollywood
Left." Those liberal poseurs are blind to the fact that those whom they deride as "NeoCons"
are in fact classical Western liberals who understand the reality that anyone professing to favor
freedom can't be "neutral" about the struggle between liberty and
tyranny. ···

Too many modern Christians are still oblivious to the historical similarities between medieval
Christianity, which burned heretics at the stake, and Islamic fanaticism today, which remains in a
medieval form of stunted cultural evolution. Ayaan Hirsi Ali -- no shrinking violet in
confronting Islamic fanatics (see Submissionhere
or here) and certainly
no apologist for medieval Christianity has correctly pointed out that
"the enlightenment [reformed Christianity]" -- not to imply modern Christianity is
perfect but to make a point to which Secular Fundamentalists are blinded by their anti-religious
bigotry: That modern Christianity embraces the enlightenment view that heresy not be punished
by violence but rather be opposed by persuasion. (Update-- Hirsi Ali's website
has extensive
commentary about Fitna.) Those who say Islam can't be reformed
are ignoring the history of the enlightenment and reformation of Christianity, but it certainly
can't be reformed without first being exposed for what it is: a culturally backward-looking,
patriarchal religion founded on doctrines threatened by modernity and fundamental human rights known
as "liberty" gradually recognized in the course of the enlightenment in the West and
formally declared in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution (despite
tragic moral flaws in both with respect to slavery). To the credit of Barack Obama (of whom I
am NOT a supporter), his speech in Philadelphia -- though seriously flawed in many
ways-- correctly
rejected his preceding generation's grievance agenda against America for her past sins in favor of
his generational agenda of seeking further improvement -- i.e., traveling the "road to
perfection"-- by being willing to recognize, appreciate and build upon improvements made.
This is the genius of the system created by Founding Fathers despite the blindness caused by their
own bigotry.

Too many western secularists are too blinded by their bigoted hatred for Christianity to
comprehend the nature and scope of the threat to liberty posed by the spread of fanatical versions
of Islam. They seem not to understand that medieval Islam views non-believing infidels to be
every bit as evil as Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. This is especially true of the
liberal poseurs in the Hollywood Left. ··

Regarding the "Anatomy of a Face in Fitna" video (wmv and flash versions
embedded at the right), it analyzes the
assertion by Sugerio that Geert Wilders may have mistakenly used the wrong image for the face
depicted in Fitna as that of the murderer of the director, Theo Van Gogh. Since
anatomy-changing distortion would be necessary for that image to be deemed to match that of another
person, it's debatable whether such other person would even have a legal case against Wilders.
Even if it were to be proved that Wilders made errors with respect to one image in the entire film,
his error in doing so is dwarfed by the widespread derelictions of duties to freedom by so many in the Western media
claiming to be champions of "free speech" who refused to host or link-to Wilders'
video. To paraphrase HotAir.Com's AllaPundit, the timidity of Western media in the face
of terrorist threats sort of proves the point Wilders made in Fitna, doesn't it?

Update-- Additional questions: Does Fitna paint non-fanatical Muslims with the
same brush as fanatical Muslims? Not if one understands that it is in part directed at the
reluctance (outright fear?) of non-fanatical Muslims to unequivocally confront, reject and defeat
the fanatical Muslims. The fanatics are screaming their hatred but the non-fanatics are
whispering their disapproval. The non-fanatics need to raise their voices. They
need to stop being apologists for medieval practices such as "honor killings" and demands
that religious theology be made the "law of the land."

Meanwhile, the Hollywood Left needs to overcome its naive embrace of the hackneyed and flawed cliché
"might doesn't make right" and instead embrace the reality that right without might loses
to wrong armed with might. The Ghandi/MLK non-violent approach only works against a power
structure which despite serious flaws remains fundamentally committed to civilized norms but not
against violent, totalitarian ideologies such as Nazism, Stalinism and Islamo-Fascism. To view
a picture that is emblematic of what is the best hope for human society in the current struggle
between modernity/enlightenment and medievalism go to Michael
Yon's November 6, 2007 installment (and make a donation while you're there.).